The Front Row

Noone can say it better then that !!!

I said either money OR the best Lawyers. Second, when you stick tape onto something, even if you touched the sticky side, what do you think is going to happen to the prints when you remove the tape? Also, the body was outside for over a month before someone reported the little girl missing. I guess the body being dumped near the Anthony home was just pure coincidence?

We are just going to have to respectfully disagree.

Don't blame the jury. The prosecution did a poor job of making their case and took it to court before they were ready.

I do blame the jury. They are the 12 dumbest people in Florida.

As someone who went through the process, the perp had a smoking gun, the defense had no evidence just accusations, I know the process. The woman should have been found guilty.

Word! The thing is it is personal for you. This is the reason you could not be on a jury. I understand your plight as you have explained it. These jurors did what they were supposed to do with what they were given.

Was the trial televised where you live? Because I certainly didn't see it. Without knowing the evidence they were presented (and with no murder weapon, and no cause of death, evidence was certainly lacking) I don't see how you can claim the jury was stupid when the prosecution simply did not have a strong enough case.

This and the Scott Peterson case are very similar to me. I though Peterson was guilty as hell but was going to get acquitted. In both of these cases the only thing that could be proven was that a person died. I honestly don't see how murder could have been proven in either case. I was wrong that Petersen would get acquitted and based on that I though Athony would get convicted. Good thing I'm not a betting man. How did either of them die? Isn't that essential in murder case, mode and means?

I really dislike it when folks blame juries for anything. A jury consists of 12 regular people from the community, who are not experts or legal scholars, but in my experience uniformly take their job seriously and apply the facts to the law as the judge instructs. It is also my experience that if the evidence is there, a jury will convict. I haven't followed this case, but I find it difficult to believe that the jury did not take its job seriously for a case of this magnitude or that it did not accurately assess the evidence. The simple fact is that our system operates under the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which effectively means we believe the only thing worse than allowing a guilty person to go free is to allow an innocent person to be convicted. That obviously hasn't always worked to perfection throughout our history and it doesn't mean that every case will turn out the way the public wants, but the presumption of innocence is our fundamental principle when the government accuses an individual of a crime. A jury verdict of not guilty does not necessarily mean that she is innocent, it means that the evidence was not sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That - like it or not - can be a legitimate result in our system.

Also, don't bitch and complain when prosecutors settle cases with plea agreements, which in reality are guaranteed convictions, because my guess is that most people would be happy with a manslaughter plea now, but I guarantee you the public would have been outraged had it been pleaded without a trial.